Comment by cwyers
8 years ago
And you're side-stepping the point that many people are making here, which is that being an Alphabet subsidiary means that they're subsidized by Google's ad business. It's concerning that massive public health projects -- of the sort that used to be undertaken largely by governments and non-profit NGOs -- are now undertaken by a company that got rich off advertising and the owners have decided to reinvest in such ventures. Ostensibly, if the US government goes out and decides to eliminate malaria, they are accountable to people for how they do this. As long as Verily is under the Alphabet umbrella, it's not even a private firm, it's a wholly owned subsidiary of Alphabet. They can write all the mission statements they want, so long as Google continues to provide advertising revenue in sufficient quantity to cover the losses of Alphabet's "other bets," the only accountability for what Verily does is to advertisers and the shareholders of an adtech firm.
> you're side-stepping the point that many people are making here, which is that being an Alphabet subsidiary means that they're subsidized by Google's ad business.
I'm not side-stepping that point. I literally conceded it multiple times.
> It's concerning that massive public health projects ... are undertaken by a company ...
You're concerned that a public health project is being undertaken by private industry...but what concern is there? What are you worried about? I'm happy to discuss that. I probably share concerns regarding the same thing.
However, if a private company invests in public health, I tend to see that as a good thing. I also agree that such private companies should be accountable. This necessitates government regulation on private companies. I am for that, to the extent that the company can still do things in the interest of the public.
However, if your point is actually that there is limited accountability for private companies working in the public interest (or their own interest), then why conflate Google and Verily? It doesn't make your point more or less valid and contributes to a fundamental misunderstanding of the context around a given issue.
If that's really your issue from the start, then just say you think these types of things should be done by entities which are held accountable to the public.
Nobody's _conflating_ Google and Verily. Verily is owned by a holding company that was formed for the express purpose of allowing Google's profits to subsidize projects that Google's founders want to pursue.